Fear revisits residents of Western Ghats
The seventh draft declaring large swathes in the Western Ghats as eco-sensitive zones, based on the Kasturirangan report, was issued by the Union government on July 27, 2026, allowing 60 days to file objections. SATHISH G.T. examines the apprehensions it has rekindled and its decades-old history
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
Protests have erupted in Karnataka, particularly in the Shivamogga district, against the seventh draft notification proposing to declare large swathes of the Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). Farmers and residents fear that the ESA tag will exacerbate existing hardships caused by stringent forest regulations, demanding physical surveys and the exclusion of human settlements from the proposed boundaries. This revives the long-standing debate over the conservation models proposed by the Gadgil and Kasturirangan committees.
UPSC Perspectives
Environmental
The controversy underscores the challenge of implementing the , under which the Union government designates Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs). The Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage site and a global biodiversity hotspot, requires urgent protection. The original Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), chaired by Madhav Gadgil, recommended classifying the entire region into three levels of Ecological Sensitivity Zones (ESZ 1, 2, and 3), advocating a graded, bottom-up approach to conservation. It proposed radical shifts like ending monoculture plantations and restricting large dams. In contrast, the subsequent High-Level Working Group (HLWG) under K. Kasturirangan adopted a more top-down, partitioning approach. It recommended declaring only 37% of the area (the 'natural landscape') as an ESA, leaving the 'cultural landscape' open to development. The current draft notification (the seventh since 2014) is based on the Kasturirangan report, proposing a ban on mining, highly polluting industries, and large construction projects within the ESA. For UPSC, understanding the differences between these two reports—Gadgil's ecological purism versus Kasturirangan's attempt at balancing development—is crucial for questions on conservation strategies.
Governance
The ongoing protests highlight a significant deficit in participatory governance and trust between the state and local communities. The Gadgil Committee strongly advocated for democratic decentralization, empowering Gram Sabhas (village councils) under the and the to make decisions regarding their local environment. It suggested financial incentives like payments for ecosystem services to encourage conservation. However, the top-down implementation of forest laws, often characterized by 'funds and guards' conservation models, has alienated local populations. The article highlights how existing regulations already deny basic amenities like roads, schools, and electricity to forest-dwelling communities, leading to 'development-induced displacement' (e.g., the Linganamakki dam displacees). The fear is that an ESA notification will further centralize control under the , exacerbating these livelihood challenges. UPSC Mains questions often explore this tension between environmental protection and the rights of forest-dwelling communities, asking how to achieve inclusive and sustainable development.
Federalism
The repeated failure to finalize the ESA notification over a decade illustrates complex dynamics in cooperative federalism. While environmental protection is on the Concurrent List of the , allowing both the Centre and States to legislate, the designation of ESAs under the EPA, 1986, is a central prerogative. However, implementing these regulations requires state cooperation. All six states sharing the Western Ghats (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu) have consistently opposed the draft notifications, citing concerns over economic development and local livelihoods. Kerala, in particular, has seen intense political mobilization against the Kasturirangan report. The Karnataka government's plan to discuss the report in a special legislative session reflects the political pressure on state governments to defend local interests against central mandates. This scenario is a prime example of the challenges in managing shared ecological resources across multiple political jurisdictions, requiring institutional mechanisms for consensus-building between the Union and the States.